Deeper field =/= Tougher slam to win

mike danny said:
Roddick's draw wasn't the easiest necessarily though. Grojsean and T Johansson (who only dropped one set en route to the semis) was a decent draw on grass.
Click to expand...

Johansson had the best W/UE stats of the four SF'ists coming in and Grosjean was super consistent on grass in 03-05 - Hewitt takes them though.
 
Tennis_Freak99 said:
Didn't make a single final after that 2002 Wimbledon. 2 QFs and 1 SF are deep runs? LOL

Roddick was unlucky to face peak Fed in so many Wimby finals. Roddick was much more consistent and made more finals

Hewitt feasted on a Vacuum era between 2000-2003. Way overhyped
Click to expand...
Vacuum era extended to '07 btw
 
Biotic said:
No wonder this guy thinks he is always right. No sane person would get into an extensive discussions with a lunatic.
Click to expand...

No, I'm right most of the times because I do considerable research and check my stuff. When I am wrong, I admit it, unlike you for example.
OTOH you are a sore butthurt meltdowning idiot who replies like this instead of actually addressing the content of my stuff because you don't know sh*t.
And have the guts to quote or tag me instead of constantly just alluding in posts, you cowardly little jerk.
 
NoleIsBoat said:
If you look at 2004-2007, what ATG opponents did Federer face on HC or grass?

USO 04 - Agassi
USO 05 - crippled Agassi
W 06 - baby Nadal
W 07 - developing Nadal
USO 07 - baby Djokovic with gluten allergy

That’s 5 ATG out of 11 slams won in this period, and barely any of them were in their prime or peak. He won most of his slams in this era defeating smurfs like Roddick, Bagdhatis, Philippousis, Gonzalez, Kiefer.
Click to expand...
Can’t let this one slide :p
 
I've never heard of any of those video games. I feel old now.
 
Biotic said:
Exibit A:

2004 AO Field: Federer, Safin, Agassi, Ferrero, Nalbandian, Roddick

2014 AO Field: Wawrinka, Nadal, Djokovic, Federer, Berdych

There is no certain way to measure, but it's reasonable to say that 2004 had a bit stronger field overall.

Now we look at the winner's path to the finals. Federer had a solid Nalbandian, and average Hewitt and Ferrero and subpar Safin. Wawrinka had a good Djokovic, solid Berdych and Nadal who was maybe injured in the final\maybe not (still gave more of a fight than Safin).

This tells us that even though field of AO 2004>2014, the 2014 was obviously a tougher slam to win, since all of 2004 tough battles actually took place without Federer, apart from QF maybe. Djokovic alone eclipses all of 2004 co.

It does not matter much if Fed>Wawa, since I'm comparing only their respective competition, and obviously lesser versions of Federer would still win in 2004.

Exibit B:

Wimbledon 2005 field: Federer, Roddick, Hewitt, Johansson, Nalbandian

Wimbledon 2014 field: Djokovic, Cilic, Dimitrov, Federer, Raonic

Not sure, but maybe 2005=2014.

But, Federer faced zero solid/good opponents, while Djokovic faced a solid Stepanek, Dimitrov and Cilic as well as good Federer.

Again, from the winner's perspective, 2014 was obviously much tougher to win even accounting for the fact that 2005 Federer > 2014 Djokovic. (imo 2014 Djokovic wins 2005 Wimbledon as well).

Comparin many 2004-2009 to 2011-2016 slams will give us surprising results.

Verdict: Slam winning difficulty level is not directly related to whatever strength of field might be at that point. It is only used by malicious posters hellbent on proving that A had it tougher than B even though it obviously isn't so.

Noone ever called e. g. 2018 USO tough, even though it was a good tournament that featured several solid/good/great players such as Djokovic, Nadal, Delpo, Thiem, Kachanov...

But hey, these kneejerk reactions will be more and more frequent if both Nadal and Djokovic win more slams in the coming years. The breakdown of the old regime is often an ugly sight.
Click to expand...
People here tend to neglect the difference between competition (field) and opposition (actual players you play against). Results from this kind of short-sight vary, from simply making wrong conclusions to constructing pathetic arguments.
 
abmk said:
No, I'm right most of the times because I do considerable research and check my stuff. When I am wrong, I admit it, unlike you for example.
OTOH you are a sore butthurt meltdowning idiot who replies like this instead of actually addressing the content of my stuff because you don't know sh*t.
And have the guts to quote or tag me instead of constantly just alluding in posts, you cowardly little jerk.
Click to expand...

What? No delusional, clueless and propagandist?

I'm disappointed.
 
itrium84 said:
People here tend to neglect the difference between competition (field) and opposition (actual players you play against). Results from this kind of short-sight vary, from simply making wrong conclusions to constructing pathetic arguments.
Click to expand...

No, they don't actually. Like here for example:

abmk said:
For the winners of the slams, difficulty ->

2004 AO > 2011 AO (Nalby of AO 04 > fed of AO 11, obviously fed also had to beat Hewitt&Ferrero)
2004 RG < 2011 RG (difference in toughest opponent is hugely significant)
2004 Wim > 2011 Wim (Roddick of Wim 04 final> Nadal of Wim 11 final)
2004 USO < 2011 USO

2005 AO > 2012 AO (Fed of AO 05 > Nadal of AO 12, Hewitt of AO 05 final only a little worse than Murray of AO 12 semi)
2005 RG > 2012 RG (fed+puerta in RG 05, djokovic in RG 12)
2005 Wim < 2012 Wim
2005 USO > 2012 USO (Hewitt of USO 05 semi > Windovic in USO 12 final)

2006 AO < 2013 AO (difference in toughest opponent is hugely significant)
2006 RG < 2013 RG
2006 Wim > 2013 Wim (Nadal and Ancic both better than tiredDovic , Janowicz, Verdasco)
2006 USO > 2013 USO (2006 USO final Roddick ~ 2013 USO final Djokovic, but Nadal did not face anyone close to Blake of USO 06)

So number wise its 6-6. Only 2004/11 RG and 06 AO/13 AO have significant differences in toughest opponent making it in favour of 11-13 overall.
Nowhere near a big difference overall.
Click to expand...

No one bothered to address this.
 
Biotic said:
I don't need to. Many here agreed with my premise. Your opinion is of little value.
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about the premise. I agree stronger field does not necessarily equal stronger competition to win. But no, they didn't agree with everything you said in the OP.

1. I was talking about the example of USO 04 vs USO 12 I gave. Its not always in favour of fed like I showed.

2. I was talking about:
"But, Federer faced zero solid/good opponents, while Djokovic faced a solid Stepanek, Dimitrov and Cilic as well as good Federer."

when you said Hewitt of Wim 05 semi wasn't solid/good or that Stepanek, Dimi, Cilic were that much better than Roddick of Wim 05 (let alone Ferrero, Gonzo of Wim 05)
that's just laughable. Which sane guy agreed with that?

3. I was talking about this ->

abmk said:
For the winners of the slams, difficulty ->

2004 AO > 2011 AO (Nalby of AO 04 > fed of AO 11, obviously fed also had to beat Hewitt&Ferrero)
2004 RG < 2011 RG (difference in toughest opponent is hugely significant)
2004 Wim > 2011 Wim (Roddick of Wim 04 final> Nadal of Wim 11 final)
2004 USO < 2011 USO

2005 AO > 2012 AO (Fed of AO 05 > Nadal of AO 12, Hewitt of AO 05 final only a little worse than Murray of AO 12 semi)
2005 RG > 2012 RG (fed+puerta in RG 05, djokovic in RG 12)
2005 Wim < 2012 Wim
2005 USO > 2012 USO (Hewitt of USO 05 semi > Windovic in USO 12 final)

2006 AO < 2013 AO (difference in toughest opponent is hugely significant)
2006 RG < 2013 RG
2006 Wim > 2013 Wim (Nadal and Ancic both better than tiredDovic , Janowicz, Verdasco)
2006 USO > 2013 USO (2006 USO final Roddick ~ 2013 USO final Djokovic, but Nadal did not face anyone close to Blake of USO 06)

So number wise its 6-6. Only 2004/11 RG and 06 AO/13 AO have significant differences in toughest opponent making it in favour of 11-13 overall.
Nowhere near a big difference overall.
Click to expand...
 
abmk said:
For the winners of the slams, difficulty ->

2004 AO > 2011 AO (Nalby of AO 04 > fed of AO 11, obviously fed also had to beat Hewitt&Ferrero)
2004 RG < 2011 RG (difference in toughest opponent is hugely significant)
2004 Wim > 2011 Wim (Roddick of Wim 04 final> Nadal of Wim 11 final)
2004 USO < 2011 USO

2005 AO > 2012 AO (Fed of AO 05 > Nadal of AO 12, Hewitt of AO 05 final only a little worse than Murray of AO 12 semi)
2005 RG > 2012 RG (fed+puerta in RG 05, djokovic in RG 12)
2005 Wim < 2012 Wim
2005 USO > 2012 USO (Hewitt of USO 05 semi > Windovic in USO 12 final)

2006 AO < 2013 AO (difference in toughest opponent is hugely significant)
2006 RG < 2013 RG
2006 Wim > 2013 Wim (Nadal and Ancic both better than tiredDovic , Janowicz, Verdasco)
2006 USO > 2013 USO (2006 USO final Roddick ~ 2013 USO final Djokovic, but Nadal did not face anyone close to Blake of USO 06)

So number wise its 6-6. Only 2004/11 RG and 06 AO/13 AO have significant differences in toughest opponent making it in favour of 11-13 overall.
Nowhere near a big difference overall.
Click to expand...
It would be cool to see this kind of breakdown for 2007-2009 and 2011-2013 in slams always believed the former was just as strong.
 
abmk said:
OTOH you are a sore butthurt meltdowning idiot who replies like this instead of actually addressing the content of my stuff because you don't know sh*t.
And have the guts to quote or tag me instead of constantly just alluding in posts, you cowardly little jerk.
Click to expand...
Damn-meme.jpg
 
ElisRF said:
It would be cool to see this kind of breakdown for 2007-2009 and 2011-2013 in slams always believed the former was just as strong.
Click to expand...

2007 AO ~ 2011 AO (Gonzo of AO 07 final on similar level as fed of AO 11, maybe a tad better, but lets say similar)
2007 RG ~ 2011 RG (Fed of RG 07 final > fed of RG 11 final, but Nadal also faced Isner in 1R of RG 11 who played well to take 2 sets off him)
2007 Wim > 2011 Wim (significant difference in toughest opponent faced with Nadal of Wim 07 final > nadal of Wim 11 final)
2007 USO < 2011 USO (Lets say, Fed of USO 11 SF and Roddick of USO 07 QF similar levels and give this to Djoko for the mental aspect over Nadal of USO 11)

2008 AO < 2012 AO (fed+tsonga in AO 08 < murray+nadal in AO 12 clearly)
2008 RG <~ 2012 RG ( I don't think djoko was any better in 2012 RG final than in 2008 RG semi. just that nadal was clearly better in 08 RG match and no rainy conditions in that match, but lets put this as <~ to be accomodating)
2008 Wim > 2012 Wim (fed in Wim 08 final significantly better than Murray in Wim 12 final or djoko in Wim 12 semi)
2008 USO >~ 2012 USO (Djoko of USO 08 semi > djoko of USO 12 final IMO, let say andreev berdych on similar level. lets put this as >~ to be accoodating)

2009 AO > 2013 AO (fed+verdasco of AO 09 combined obviously better than wawrinka+murray of AO 13)
2009 RG ~ 2013 RG (let say delpo of RG 09 semi similar level as djoko of RG 13 semi, soderling better than ferrer in the finals, nadal faced brands a little better than acusaso)
2009 Wim > 2013 Wim (significant difference in toughest opponent faced with Roddick of Wim 09 final way better than anyone Murray faced)
2009 USO > 2013 USO (significant difference in toughest opponent faced with fed of USO 09 final significantly better than djoko of USO 13 final)

Actually this is a clear win for 07-09. (07-08 not that much better than 11-12, but 09 blows 13 out of the water)

Difference here is probably more than the overall fields b/w 07-09 and 11-13 (07-09 is better here, but probably not by as much)

fed (finalist) had it tougher than nadal in RG 11 with djoko in the semi
ditto for djokovic (finalist) than nadal in USO 13 - with stan in the semi
You had djokovic playing very well before the final in USO 12 (minus the 1st set in windy conditions vs ferrer)
etc.
 
Last edited:
abmk said:
2007 AO ~ 2011 AO (Gonzo of AO 07 final on similar level as fed of AO 11, maybe a tad better, but lets say similar)
2007 RG ~ 2011 RG (Fed of RG 07 final > fed of RG 11 final, but Nadal also faced Isner in 1R of RG 11 who played well to take 2 sets off him)
2007 Wim > 2011 Wim (significant difference in toughest opponent faced with Nadal of Wim 07 final > nadal of Wim 11 final)
2007 USO < 2011 USO (Lets say, Fed of USO 11 SF and Roddick of USO 07 SF similar levels and give this to Djoko for the mental aspect over Nadal of USO 11)

2008 AO < 2012 AO (fed+tsonga in AO 08 < murray+nadal in AO 12 clearly)
2008 RG <~ 2012 RG ( I don't think djoko was any better in 2012 RG final than in 2008 RG semi. just that nadal was clearly better in 08 RG match and no rainy conditions in that match, but lets put this as <~ to be accomodating)
2008 Wim > 2012 Wim (fed in Wim 08 final significantly better than Murray in Wim 12 final or djoko in Wim 12 semi)
2008 USO >~ 2012 USO (Djoko of USO 08 semi > djoko of USO 12 final IMO, let say andreev berdych on similar level. lets put this as >~ to be accoodating)

2009 AO > 2013 AO (fed+verdasco of AO 09 combined obviously better than wawrinka+murray of AO 13)
2009 RG ~ 2013 RG (let say delpo of RG 09 semi similar level as djoko of RG 13 semi, soderling better than ferrer in the finals, nadal faced brands a little better than acusaso)
2009 Wim > 2013 Wim (significant difference in toughest opponent faced with Roddick of Wim 09 final way better than anyone Murray faced)
2009 USO > 2013 USO (significant difference in toughest opponent faced with fed of USO 09 final significantly better than djoko of USO 13 final)

Actually this is a clear win for 07-09. (07-08 not that much better than 11-12, but 09 blows 13 out of the water)

Difference here is probably more than the overall fields b/w 07-09 and 11-13 (07-09 is better here, but probably not by as much)

fed (finalist) had it tougher than nadal in RG 11 with djoko in the semi
ditto for djokovic (finalist) than nadal in USO 13 - with stan in the semi
You had djokovic playing very well before the final in USO 12 (minus the 1st set in windy conditions vs ferrer)
etc.
Click to expand...
I would swap the USO 07/08 making it better than USO 11/12 and RG 11/12 making it better than RG 07/08. But you balanced it out on both ends so no big deal.
 
ElisRF said:
I would swap the USO 07/08 making it better than USO 11/12 and RG 11/12 making it better than RG 07/08. But you balanced it out on both ends so no big deal.
Click to expand...

For me, USO 11 over USO 07 for the mental aspect of beating well playing fed+ prime nadal B2B only reason.
I suppose you could put USO 12 over 08 for similar reason, but Djoko's struggles in the wind leading to him going 2 sets to love down dampens that clearly.
 
abmk said:
For me, USO 11 over USO 07 for the mental aspect of beating well playing fed+ prime nadal B2B only reason.
I suppose you could put USO 12 over 08 for similar reason, but Djoko's struggles in the wind leading to him going 2 sets to love down dampens that clearly.
Click to expand...
I meant to say USO 08 over 12 by a wider margin and RG 11/12 over RG 07/08. Fair enough about the USO.
 
abmk said:
No, they don't actually. Like here for example:



No one bothered to address this.
Click to expand...
You cherry picked one comment addressing this issue and misrepresented it as an example of general forum sentiment. It's not. It's an exception from the rule.
 
itrium84 said:
You cherry picked one comment addressing this issue and misrepresented it as an example of general forum sentiment. It's not. It's an exception from the rule.
Click to expand...

I just gave one example from this very thread.

Now you want more?

1. Rate Djokovic vs Federer all slam final oppenents (subjective)

2. FEDAL-Try to be Objective

3. Federer losses in slams at prime vs Djokovic losses in slams at prime - against non ATGs

Don't go by just heading or opening post. This thread has discussion of competition/level of rivals.

Just 3 more examples on top of my head. There are more, I'm sure.
 
RS said:
People say Gonzo and Novak played very well in those events and the winner was on fire.
Click to expand...
Gonzo played really well indeed... up until the final. The final was a disappointment from him. Novak wasn't particularly spectacular in his final either (he was good but not that good; the real tough opponent that tournament was Roddick). 2007 USO was still a decently tough win for Fed imo, but 2007 AO was pretty weak. Obviously Wimby was spectacular and RG was good as well (Fed was a great finals opponent that day).
 
Third Serve said:
Gonzo played really well indeed... up until the final. The final was a disappointment from him. Novak wasn't particularly spectacular in his final either (he was good but not that good; the real tough opponent that tournament was Roddick). 2007 USO was still a decently tough win for Fed imo, but 2007 AO was pretty weak. Obviously Wimby was spectacular and RG was good as well (Fed was a great finals opponent that day).
Click to expand...
Gonzo still better than Med by a tier though LOL.

2007 USO was fairly difficult because of 3 top 5 players in a row.
 
Biotic said:
2007 was a breath of fresh air with Djokovic, Gasquet, Murray etc. Not weak, not strong either. Slams were NID, nothing strong about that.
Click to expand...
I mean don't get me wrong 2007 was several orders of magnitude above 04-06, but that's not exactly saying much...
 
Biotic said:
2007 was a breath of fresh air with Djokovic, Gasquet, Murray etc. Not weak, not strong either. Slams were NID, nothing strong about that.
Click to expand...
Wimbeldon 2007 was not NID. RG was but it was competitive in the final against one of the best Nadal versions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

abmk
2004 a significantly better year than 2014 in men's tennis
2 3
Replies
105
Views
6K
duaneeo
duaneeo
Druss
Replacing Djokovic of 2014+ with 2004/07 Federer
Replies
39
Views
3K
Deleted member 307496
D
Lew II
Lew Rating for all Slam winners since 2003
Replies
40
Views
3K
daggerman
daggerman
T
Hypothetical Peak Federer vs Hypothetical Peak Djokovic slam count
Replies
22
Views
2K
Mazz Retic
Mazz Retic
M
Grand Slam Sets Win/Loss % of Year End #1 from the Big 4 Era
Replies
3
Views
573
Nashvegas
N
Back
Top